Independent Arboricultural assessment of an outline planning application for 120 dwellings
SITE Land opposite Heath Farm, Briary Lane, Royston, Hertfordshire
Planning application 20/00744/OP/OP
On behalf of Royston Says No To Gladman
Sharon Durdant-Hollamby FICFor FArborA BSc (Hons) Tech Cert (ArborA)
DATE: 5 May 2020 OUR REF: SHA 1175 OUR CONTACT DETAILS: 01245 210420 [email protected]
Page 2 of 35
Contents
Paragraph number Paragraph contents Page number
1 Introduction and background 3
2 The issues addressed and a statement of instructions 4
3 The background, site and trees 4
4 The current application 12
5 My opinion 15
6 Conclusion 17
7 Recommendation 17
Appendices
1 My experience and qualifications 19
2 National and North Hertfordshire District policies 21
3 Reviewed documents and literature 29
4 Magic Map 31
5 Methodology 33
Planning Application 20/00744/OP Arboricultural report - Gladmans On behalf of Royston Says No to Gladman
Page 3 of 35
1.0 Introduction and background 1.1 This report has been commissioned to provide an independent arboricultural assessment of the proposal for Outline planning application for up to 99 residential dwellings (including up to 40% affordable housing), introduction of structural planting and landscaping, informal public open space and children's play area, surface water flood mitigation, vehicular access point via the demolition of an existing property on Echo Hill (all matters to be reserved for later determination save site vehicular access) at Land Opposite Heath Farm Briary Lane Royston Hertfordshire. The application was validated on 1 April 2020 and is reference 20/00744/OP.
1.2 To provide my assessment, I received photos of trees on the southern side of Sun Hill from a local resident (this report was written in the COVID 19 lockdown). I have previously visited the site on 8 May 2018 and include relevant photos from that visit in my report. I reviewed the current application, as well as the previously refused application (reference 18/00747/OP) and North Hertfordshire District Council policies.
1.2 This scheme follows refusal of consent reference 18/00747/OP for ‘Outline planning application for the erection of up to 120 dwellings with public open space, landscaping and sustainable drainage system (SUDS) and vehicular access point from Briary Lane. All matters reserved except for means of main site access’. My report raising concerns about this application was referenced SHA 720 Ind Arb Report dated May 2018. The principal reasons for refusal are that development ‘would be likely to result in significant localised adverse impacts on both the character of the area and visual receptors’. A second reason is that the direct impacts upon the SSSI are not adequately evaluated. The two other reasons are not relevant to arboriculture or landscape.
1.3 Writer I am Sharon Durdant-Hollamby (formerly Hosegood). My specialist field is arboriculture and I am a Chartered Arboriculturist and am a Fellow of both of my professional organizations, as well as Vice President of the Institute of Chartered Foresters. My degree included a major element of landscape studies and woodland ecology, and I used these skills when I was Managing Director of a medium sized multi-disciplinary environmental consultancy. Full details of my qualifications and experience entitling me to give expert opinion evidence are at appendix 1.
1.4 Summary of my conclusions This report shows that, whilst the application acknowledges some tree and hedge removal, there is a risk of large scale tree removal due if the bridleway surface needs to upgraded for its proposed status as an emergency access and cycleway, unless the surface can be an above ground
Planning Application 20/00744/OP Arboricultural report - Gladmans On behalf of Royston Says No to Gladman
Page 4 of 35
construction. If it is to be adopted as a cycleway, then to meet Highway Standards, the construction depth is likely to result in unacceptable root severance.
The key area of concern is the proposed widening of the footpath on part of the southern side of Sun Hill which would result in the loss of a line of mature trees which provide a high level of visual amenity. These trees are not included in the submitted Arboricultural Impact Assessment.
I recommend the following: - That a Tree Preservation Order is served on the trees along Briary Lane bridleway and on trees on the southern side of Sun Hill. - That further information on the requirement for surfacing the bridleway is required. - That the application is refused due to the proposed upgrade of sewer along the bridleway to cope with 185 dwellings as this is likely to result in unacceptable root loss to the important trees (reference eG8) - That the application is refused due to an unacceptable loss of mature trees on the southern side of Sun Hill to meet proposed footpath widening. I note that this widening is required to meet national and government policies.
2.0 The issues to be addressed and a statement of instructions 2.1 Statement of instructions To provide an independent arboricultural opinion on the planning application, reviewing submitted documents and the Council’s own policies.
2.2 The purpose of the report To assist North Hertfordshire District Council in determining planning application 20/00744/OP.
3.0 The background, site and trees 3.2 Planning background – Design and access statement: Key facts – the application differs from the previous one in as follows: - The access is from Eco Hill (see annotation 1 on the drawing) - There are 21 fewer dwellings - Briary Lane will become a cycleway and Emergency Access (likely to require resurfacing to meet standards) - Required Highway improvements to meet standards results in a widened footpath on the southern side of Sun Hill.
Planning Application 20/00744/OP Arboricultural report - Gladmans On behalf of Royston Says No to Gladman
Page 5 of 35
New access
Figure 1 – extract from Figure 4 of the Design and Access Statement
3.3 The landscape setting and current use The site accessed by Public Bridleway 13 from Sun Hill in the north to open arable landscape to the south. The trees along the bridleway form continual canopy cover from the junction with Sun Hill until the farm house complex to the south. The trees (notated as G8 on the arboricultural impact assessment) form a screen separating Therfield Heath to the west from residential development to the east.
Planning Application 20/00744/OP Arboricultural report - Gladmans On behalf of Royston Says No to Gladman
Page 6 of 35
G9
G8
Photo 1 of the trees along the bridleway looking south (notated as G8 in the Arboricultural Impact Assessment). Note how the trees inform the landscape character when viewed from the south of Royston.
Photo 2 of the trees as seen from Therfield Heath looking east. Note how these trees form a continual canopy cover between the bridleway and SSSI, and provide ecological connectivity for small mammals, feeding and navigating bats and invertebrates.
Low boundary hedges, typical of arable landscape, are on the northern, western and southern boundaries. The two arable fields are separated, by a low continual hedgerow (H3). The view looking north from the southern boundary is an open sweeping landscape, punctuated with trees
Planning Application 20/00744/OP Arboricultural report - Gladmans On behalf of Royston Says No to Gladman
Page 7 of 35
and hedges. This is entirely in keeping with the Landscape Character Assessment (see appendix 2 for references) as ‘Expansive open area with long distance views to the north’.
Photo 3 typical view showing the open arable landscape with extensive views to the north. This view will completely change if the proposal is approved.
Photo 4 of the open landscape looking towards residential properties to the east. This view will completely change and new properties will be tight against the eastern boundary with residential properties, with little room for effective planting based on the current master plan.
Planning Application 20/00744/OP Arboricultural report - Gladmans On behalf of Royston Says No to Gladman
Page 8 of 35
H5
Photo 5 of the southern boundary (on the left-hand side) looking east along the footpath. This view shows the tranquil rural landscape with a large lime tree as a focal point.
The new application is from an access on Echo Hill and requires the removal of a property and small trees in the garden (all category C). I concur that the impact of the loss of these trees is low.
The southern side of Sun Hill has a line of mature trees between Hill Side to the East and 40 Sun Hill to the west, with very few trees on the northern side. The line of mature horse chestnut and lime trees form a cohesive line of trees along a wide grass verge. They appear from photographs to be in a good form and condition (note a detailed arboricultural survey is required) and due to their size and form provide a cohesive, attractive linear landscape feature. The properties are set back from Sun Hill and there is no impediment for the trees to mature to their full size. The collective amenity they provide is important to the landscape setting of Sun Hill.
Photo 6 of the eastern most horse chestnut looking west (SHA T1)
Planning Application 20/00744/OP Arboricultural report - Gladmans On behalf of Royston Says No to Gladman
Page 9 of 35
Photo 7 of T2 lime Photo 8 of T3 and T4
Photo 9 of T4 lime Photo 10 of T5 lime
Planning Application 20/00744/OP Arboricultural report - Gladmans On behalf of Royston Says No to Gladman
Page 10 of 35
Photo 11 of T6 lime Photo 12 of T7 lime
Photo 13 of T8 horse chestnut
Planning Application 20/00744/OP Arboricultural report - Gladmans On behalf of Royston Says No to Gladman
Page 11 of 35
3.4 Designations and legislation The trees are not protected by a tree preservation order or within a Conservation Area. They are protected by virtue of the need to apply for a Felling Licence from the Forestry Commission (exclusions apply). There is an offsite Area Tree Preservation Order 1/70 on the development including Layston Park.
3.6 Arboricultural impact assessment - Arboricultural Assessment by FPCR dated February 2020 The report has been produced in accordance with BS 5837:2012 ‘Trees in relation to design, demolition and construction. Recommendations (BS). The report describes six individual trees, ten groups and five hedgerows. Following my previous report for the former application, an Addendum ‘Response to concerns in respect of Arboriculture’ was produced by the consultants FPCR in September 2018. This provided more detail on the trees along the bridleway (45 trees and 2 groups in G8). The report goes on to say that it is highly desirable that the trees are retained and that there is already major service infrastructure beneath the bridleway and that the bridleway has been surfaced for some time. I disagree with 4.7 of this report which states:
‘The historic presence of the bridleway is an obstruction to development of lateral rooting material to the east and would provide a barrier to significant rooting material within the bridleway. Thus, the maximum root protection area for trees within G8 in an easterly direction is likely to be the edge of the bridleway. The large trees within this group will have extended their rooting systems wider in the northerly, southerly and westerly directions to compensate for this.’
I agree that the trees will have preferentially rooted away from the bridleway where opportunities for gaseous exchange and water infiltration apply, but my own practice and research for 15 years have found roots under compacted surfaces (often deeper and at a lower density). I base this on observing excavations, using an airspade ( a compressed air lance) and using TreeRadar ( a specialist ground penetrating radar). If the existing sewer has a leak, then it is probable that roots will grow into the soil near the pipe (due to the higher water and nutrient content), and may form a sheath around, and possibly within, the weakened area.
Section 5.2 acknowledges that part of G7 (T1 and T2) and G9 (T3 and T5) will need to be removed to facilitate a new footway. The report states that there will be a new landscaping scheme to replace these trees. My observation is that there will be a negative visual impact following their removal until new trees become established.
Planning Application 20/00744/OP Arboricultural report - Gladmans On behalf of Royston Says No to Gladman
Page 12 of 35
4.0 The arboricultural impact assessment 4.1 There are risks of damage to the trees during the construction phase from contractor parking storage, excavations and other unforeseen activities. The Arboricultural Impact Assessment by FPCR dated February 2020 provides generic information in this regard.
4.2 The original plan to widen of the bridleway to create an adoptable Highway has changed to emergency access only and an adoptable cycleway. If, as the Arboricultural Impact Assessment states, the existing surface remains, then there is no arboricultural impact in respect of this. However, there may be a requirement for re-surfacing for the emergency access and cycleway (to be adopted). If this is the case it would not be a case of simply re-surfacing, but excavation to create an adoptable Highway. This typically involves excavating down to 600 - 800mm deep to create a suitable construction. In addition, to install the underground services deeper trenches would need to be dug). Tree roots of sycamores of this age are typically within the top 1.5m, and extend out beyond the crown. I recommend that the requirements are considered during the lifetime of the application.
There are specialist methods to achieve minimal dig construction, but these are rarely adopted by the Highway Authority. The reality is that roots will be severed to achieve the construction which will compromise the health and structural stability of the trees, resulting in them being felled. This will create a considerable loss of amenity to Therfield Common which is a Site of Special Scientific Interest.
Photo 14 of the bridleway
Planning Application 20/00744/OP Arboricultural report - Gladmans On behalf of Royston Says No to Gladman
Page 13 of 35
Photo 15 of trees along the bridleway, looking east from Therfield Common which could potentially be removed if the bridleway was to be improved to enable emergency access and cycleway.
Sewer connection: The report by Utility Law Solutions - Foul Drainage Analysis (February 2018) shows where the proposed connection to the public sewerage network. The sewer will be upgraded to serve 185 dwellings and the installation of a large pipe (typically requiring a 600mm wide excavation) and this would lead to root serverance and risk to the large trees in G8.
Figure 2 on page 33 of report. Do not scale. North is vertical.
Planning Application 20/00744/OP Arboricultural report - Gladmans On behalf of Royston Says No to Gladman
Page 14 of 35
Transport Assessment: The Transport Assessment by Ashley Helme Associates (March 2020) finds that access will be as follows:
Vehicles: Access on Echo Hill Cycles: Access on Echo Hill and Briary Lane Pedestrians: Access on Echo Hill and Briary Lane Emergency: Access on Briary Lane
The proposed development is from Echo Hill requiring the demolition of number 24. The scheme includes plans to introduce dropped kerbs and tactile paving (section 5.1.5.4). Drawing number 1517/23/A shows a potential widening scheme (subject to confirmation of highway status and detailed tree survey).
The drawing shows that the kerb line will be moved south along a line of existing trees along part of Sun Hill. The pertinent area for trees (SHA T1 – T8 see photos 6 – 13) is shown on the plan extract below:
Red line – kerb line moving back very close to tree trunks.
Figure 3 – extract from 1517/23 A from Transport Assessment. Do not scale. North is vertical.
Planning Application 20/00744/OP Arboricultural report - Gladmans On behalf of Royston Says No to Gladman
Page 15 of 35
These trees have not been surveyed as part of the Arboricultural Impact Assessment. Widening the footpath as shown on Figure 3 results in severing the main buttress roots. Not only would the ground need to be leveled with the pavement, but it would need to be dug down to enable Highway standard construction (for a footway, typically 450mm). This would lead to a total excavation of at least 800mm. This would certainly lead to major root severance on the road side, leading to loss of stability and the loss of the trees’ ability to carry out normal physiological functions. They would need to be felled.
Photo 16 showing area to be widened (approximately) down to c.600- 800mm
5.0 My opinion 5.1 Impact of the upgrading of the bridleway to adoptable cycleway and as Emergency Access If resurfacing is required to meet adoptable standards, this is highly likely to lead to excavation. In my opinion, it is probable that roots from G8 are present. Severance of these roots would lead to tree instability and the potential loss of the line of trees so important to the setting.
These trees provide a high level of visual amenity to the area (see photos 10 -11) and provide continual canopy cover. They are in a reasonable condition and provide a buffer between the SSSI and residential area to the east. I believe these trees have collective landscape value and are worthy of protection by means of careful design and a Tree Preservation Order.
Further information on surfacing requirements is needed to fully assess this risk.
Planning Application 20/00744/OP Arboricultural report - Gladmans On behalf of Royston Says No to Gladman
Page 16 of 35
5.2 Impact of the construction process on the trees In a 27-year career as a tree officer, and now arboricultural consultant, I have observed how quickly trees can be harmed during construction activities unless detailed recommendations are made to ensure their physical protection during works. These recommendations need to be first prescribed by an arboricultural impact assessment and then enshrined in planning conditions. The protection should then be monitored by the arboricultural consultant, and if necessary, enforced by North Hertfordshire District Council. The absence of a tree officer within the Planning Department must make this process more difficult. The tree report is generic and fails to make detailed recommendations on where tree protection measures will be used, although it is likely that an arboricultural method statement would be required and more detail provided.
5.3 Impact of the tree scape The removal of the trees listed in the Arboricultural Report, coupled with the possible removal of trees on the bridleway will completely change the landscape (only if the surface is to be renewed). The retention of the bridleway trees would result in a lower impact on the tree scape. This sense of enclosure is not only physical, but also physiological, encasing natural open space from residential areas. This loss of enclosure diminishes the sense of ‘getting away from it all’ for walkers taking exercise and recreation on The Common.
The widening of the footpath on the southern side of Sun Hill will result in the removal of 8 mature trees which provide a high level of visual amenity.
5.4 Impact on the landscape The impact on the landscape is twofold: the loss of trees as previously discussed and the impact of new housing on the nearby residents and ‘visual receptors’ using the footpath network. I note that the application includes an area of open space, and that there will be new tree and shrub planting, which is welcomed, but I consider that the proximity to the new residential development to the western boundary and northern boundary is very close, without provide room for effective planting. The existing tree scape here is sparse, on the western boundary, characterized by mature trees in large rear gardens providing glimpsed views between substantial properties and open arable land. Such a landscape is prized and it entirely accords with the Landscape Character Assessment.
The loss of the trees on the southern side of Sun Hill would have a large negative visual impact to a high number of people.
Planning Application 20/00744/OP Arboricultural report - Gladmans On behalf of Royston Says No to Gladman
Page 17 of 35
6.0 Conclusions 6.1 This application lacks detail on surfacing requirements for the bridleway to provide emergency access and cycleway. If there is no change required, the trees can be retained. If surfacing to an adoptable standard is required, there is potential for the trees to be harmed and possibly removed. Further information is needed during the lifetime of the application. However, even if the surface is to be retained, there is a significant risk of root severance due to the upgrade of the sewer, which will require wide and deep excavation. Further detail is needed as there is no way a sewer can be under ground moled (due to pipe diameter) or hand dug in a compacted surface. This means there is a risk of tree removal, in particular the large sycamores so important in the landscape.
6.2 The removal of trees on Sun Hill for the footpath widening is unacceptable from an arboricultural, landscape and ecological perspective and contrary to local and national policies. I understand that this widening is required to meet national standards, and without this, the proposal will fail to meet the requirements for Highway safety. The arboricultural impact does not include these trees.
6.3 The trees along the bridleway and Sun Hill meet the criteria for a Tree Preservation Order (TPO) as they clearly provide a strong visual amenity, are in a reasonable form and condition, and it is expedient to serve the order in the light of development proposals. The legislation places no barriers on species, nor seeks the trees to be in an excellent condition. Common Land and Council’s own Highway Land is not exempt from TPO legislation. Planning Authorities have a statutory duty to consider trees as a material consideration and to serve TPOs when it is ‘expedient in the interests of amenity’. The absence of a tree officer does not preclude the council from these obligations. I do not advocate complete tree retention, and consider that woodland management is beneficial, but this should be controlled by the means of planning condition and Tree Preservation Order applications.
6.4 The council’s own policies (see appendix two) seek to maintain the countryside and improve the rural environment. This proposal has the potential to result in significant tree loss, creating a detrimental change on this gateway between the town and countryside.
6.5 The application would result in widespread change in the landscape character and the built area is so close to the existing residential area to prevent new landscaping. I believe the loss of tree cover and change to the landscape is unacceptable given National and Local Policies.
Planning Application 20/00744/OP Arboricultural report - Gladmans On behalf of Royston Says No to Gladman
Page 18 of 35
7.0 Recommendations 7.1 I recommend that the application is refused due to its potential to result in significant tree loss, and that there is not enough information within the application to determine the arboricultural impact.
7.2 That a tree preservation order is served on the wooded area to the east and south, the trees along the bridleway and on the southern side of Sun Hill.
7.3 That if the council is minded to recommend the application, that planning conditions are served to cover detailed arboricultural impact assessment and method statement, site supervision and a detailed woodland management plan.
Sharon Durdant-Hollamby FICFor FArborA BSc (Hons) Tech. Cert. (Arbor A)
Director Sharon Hosegood Associates Ltd
Planning Application 20/00744/OP Arboricultural report - Gladmans On behalf of Royston Says No to Gladman
Page 19 of 35
Appendix 1
My experience and qualifications
Planning Application 20/00744/OP Arboricultural report - Gladmans On behalf of Royston Says No to Gladman
Page 20 of 35
Sharon Durdant-Hollamby FICFor FArbor A BSc (Hons) Tech Cert Arbor A
Profile
Sharon is an Expert Witness, chartered arboriculturist and Director of Sharon Hosegood Associates Ltd. Sharon had eleven years’ experience as a local government tree and landscape officer before joining DF Clark Contractors as a tree consultant in 2005. In 2007 she formed an environmental practice in Essex with the owner. As managing director, she built up the ecological and arboricultural consultancy to a team of 20. She is a regular presenter and an occasional trainer for Trevor Roberts Associates. She appeared on BBC1 in July 2015 and September 2015, in ‘Britain Beneath Your Feet’ demonstrating tree radar at the Burghley Country Park, Lincs, with Dallas Campbell, the consumer programme ‘Rip Off Britain’, and latterly, again with tree radar equipment, Springwatch, investigating the rooting of the Major Oak at Sherwood Forest in June 2018. Sharon was the technical coordinator and chair of the Institute of Chartered Foresters national study tour 2016 ‘The streets of London’. In November 2018 Sharon presented at the Annual International Arboricultural Summit in Hong Kong and is now on the Board of Advisors. She became Vice President of the Institute of Chartered Foresters in April 2019.
Specialties: Trees in relation to development, including appeals and planning hearings
Tree root investigations, including TreeRadar
Tree hazard evaluation
Tree preservation orders
Trees and well-being with community engagement
Professional bodies: Vice President of the Institute of Chartered Foresters Fellow of the Institute of Chartered Foresters (ICF) Assessor for the ICF examination board Fellow of the Arboricultural Association
Qualifications: Cardiff University Law School Bond Solon Civil Expert Certificate Arboricultural Associations Technicians Certificate BSc (Hons) Geography and Landscape Studies Managing Safely IOSH (2017)
Awards: Top student award for the Technician’s certificate in 2005
The Broomfield Hospital Woodland Management project she has managed since 2009 has won the following awards: - The Essex Biodiversity Awards (nomination) - The Excellent Community Engagement Award (NHS Forest) - Green Flag and Green Apple Award - Highly commended for the Health Sector Journal Award 2013
Planning Application 20/00744/OP Arboricultural report - Gladmans On behalf of Royston Says No to Gladman
Page 21 of 35
Appendix two
National and North Hertfordshire District Council Policies
Planning Application 20/00744/OP Arboricultural report - Gladmans On behalf of Royston Says No to Gladman
Page 22 of 35
National Policy Framework 2012 Note I have used grey font where text is not relevant to this site and bold italics where policies are especially relevant.
11. Conserving and enhancing the natural environment 109. The planning system should contribute to and enhance the natural and local environment by: ●protecting and enhancing valued landscapes, geological conservation interests and soils; ● recognising the wider benefits of ecosystem services; ● minimising impacts on biodiversity and providing net gains in biodiversity where possible, contributing to the Government’s commitment to halt the overall decline in biodiversity, including by establishing coherent ecological networks that are more resilient to current and future pressures; ● preventing both new and existing development from contributing to or being put at unacceptable risk from, or being adversely affected by unacceptable levels of soil, air, water or noise pollution or land instability
Tree Preservation Orders The Town and Country Planning (Tree Preservation)(England) Regulations 2012
The following is from: https://www.gov.uk/guidance/tree-preservation-orders-and-trees-in-conservation-areas#tree- preservation-orders--general
Who makes Tree Preservation Orders and why? Local planning authorities can make a Tree Preservation Order if it appears to them to be ‘expedient in the interests of amenity to make provision for the preservation of trees or woodlands in their area‘. Authorities can either initiate this process themselves or in response to a request made by any other party. When deciding whether an Order is appropriate, authorities are advised to take into consideration what ‘amenity’ means in practice, what to take into account when assessing amenity value, what ‘expedient’ means in practice, what trees can be protected and how they can be identified. When granting planning permission authorities have a duty to ensure, whenever appropriate, that planning conditions are used to provide for tree preservation and planting. Orders should be made in respect of trees where it appears necessary in connection with the grant of permission.
Comment – Local Authorities have a duty to consider trees as a material consideration of the planning process and make new Tree Preservation Orders.
Planning Application 20/00744/OP Arboricultural report - Gladmans On behalf of Royston Says No to Gladman
Page 23 of 35
North Hertfordshire District Local Plan No.2 with Alterations Royston Town Centre plan extract
Extract from North Herefordshire District Council saved Royston map. Do not scale. North
Planning Application 20/00744/OP Arboricultural report - Gladmans On behalf of Royston Says No to Gladman
Page 24 of 35
Royston Area in the Proposed submission Local Plan 2011 – 2031. Do not scale. North Site shown outlined red
Saved Local Plan Policies Policy 6: Rural Areas beyond the Green Belt In Rural Areas beyond the Green Belt, the Council will maintain the existing countryside and villages and, and their character. Except in Selected Villages (Policy 7), a development proposal will normally be allowed only if:
• it is strictly necessary for the needs of agriculture, forestry or any proven need for local community services, provided that: o the need cannot practicably be met within a town, excluded village or selected village, and o the proposal positively improves the rural environment; or • it would meet an identified rural housing need, in compliance with Policy 29; or • it is a single dwelling on a small plot located within the built core of the settlement which will not result in outward expansion of the settlement or have any other adverse impact on the local environment or other policy aims within the Rural Areas; or • it involves a change to the rural economy in terms of Policy 24 or Policy 25
Comment – the policy is to maintain the existing countryside
Comment – the proposal does not positively improve the rural environment
Policy 21: Landscape and Open Space Patterns in Towns In towns, the Council will maintain a general pattern of landscape features, and of public and private open spaces, as shown on the Proposals Map:
• by normally refusing development proposals which would have a significantly detrimental effect on the character, form, extent and structure of the pattern; Planning Application 20/00744/OP Arboricultural report - Gladmans On behalf of Royston Says No to Gladman
Page 25 of 35
• if development is acceptable in these terms, by requiring the character, form and layout of the development proposals to retain and/or reinforce the pattern through appropriate landscape and open space provision and quality of design; • by managing appropriate land for open spaces; • by encouraging their positive use and management for formal and informal recreation, for amenity and nature conservation; and • by undertaking and encouraging small scale environmental improvements where they will reinforce the pattern of landscape features and open spaces. In addition, the Council will seek to reinforce the pattern in areas for consolidation of open space and landscape pattern as shown on the Proposals Map.
• Comment – the policy is to maintain a general pattern of landscape features, and of public open spaces
• Comment – the policy is to encourage positive use and management of land for amenity and nature conservation
North Herts Landscape Study (Character, Sensitivity and Capacity) The Landscape Partnership 2011
Extract from Landscape Character Assessment plan. Site shown by blue arrow. Do not scale. North
Planning Application 20/00744/OP Arboricultural report - Gladmans On behalf of Royston Says No to Gladman
Page 26 of 35
KEY CHARACTERISTICS VISUAL AND SENSORY PERCEPTION _ Incised chalk scarp slope Expansive open area with long distance views _ Large scale pattern of rectilinear fields to the north. _ Long straight roads, open and without hedge boundaries, climbing the face of the Rarity & distinctiveness scarp The chalk scarp is a comparatively common _ Absence of larger settlements feature in North Hertfordshire however the _ Long distance views openness, lack of development (particularly in the west) and the history of this character area make it almost unique in the county. Therfield Heath, SSSI is the single largest area of unimproved chalk VISUAL IMPACT grassland in the county. It comprises coombes, Scarp provides a vantage point for long downland and distance views over Royston to the north. areas of mixed scrub home to an array of plants and invertebrates including pasque flower, ACCESSIBILITY perennial flax, bastard toadflax and burnt tip Pattern of roads and footpaths runs up and orchid and the largest colony of chalkhill blue in down the scarp face. Connections radiate out the county. Coombe Bottom is another key chalk from Royston. Icknield Way and Hertfordshire grassland area occurring on steep scarp slopes. Way long distance paths cross the Character Woodland communities on these slopes are Area. primarily broadleaved, with beech being a notably successful species. Other COMMUNITY VIEWS important sites occur at Deadman’s Hill, Heath Hertfordshire County Council (HCC) have Farm, Barkway Road, Whiteley Hill and the A505 undertaken Tier B (Community of Place) cutting at Burloes. consultations. Views of the local community have been sought and contributor’s responses to each of the Character Areas will be analysed
CONDITION Land cover change: Insignificant Age structure of tree cover: Over mature Extent of semi-natural habitat survival: Relic Management of semi-natural habitat: Poor Survival of cultural pattern: Declining/Relic Impact of built development: Moderate Impact of land-use change: Low Matrix Score: Poor
ROBUSTNESS Impact of landform: Prominent Impact of land cover: Prominent Impact of historic pattern: Apparent Visibility from outside: Widely visible Sense of enclosure: Open
Planning Application 20/00744/OP Arboricultural report - Gladmans On behalf of Royston Says No to Gladman
Page 27 of 35
Comments: The Landscape Character Assessment stresses the imporants of maitnaing the prominent, open, chalk grassland landscape.
North Hertfordshire District Council Tree Strategy 2017
One of the polices in the Trees and Development section of the strategy is:
2) The Council, through it’s Planning Services, shall seek agreement with the developers under Section 106 Agreements to secure, where appropriate, Planning Application 20/00744/OP Arboricultural report - Gladmans On behalf of Royston Says No to Gladman
Page 28 of 35
provision for new tree planting or works to maintain or conserve important trees and other arboricultural features. All such works must be carried out in accordance with the Council‘s Framework Agreement For Tree Maintenance and monitored by the Council’s arboricultural or landscaping staff.
Comments: This strategy is primarily concenred with council owned trees. However this policy states that the council will seek to secure wors to maintain or conserve important trees and other arboricultural features.
Planning Application 20/00744/OP Arboricultural report - Gladmans On behalf of Royston Says No to Gladman
Page 29 of 35
Appendix three
Reviewed documents and literature
Planning Application 20/00744/OP Arboricultural report - Gladmans On behalf of Royston Says No to Gladman
Page 30 of 35
The following documents were reviewed (note this list excludes Council policies):
- All documents submitted with the planning application 18/00747/OP and 20/00744/OP including:
Arboricultural Assessment by FPCR dated March 2018, September 2018 and February 2020
The following documents and literature were reviewed (excluding North Hertfordshire District Council Policies):
BSI. BS 3998:2010 Tree work-Recommendations. BSI. BS 5837:2012 Trees in relation to design, demolition and construction – Recommendations R.G.Strouts and T.G.Winter ‘Diagnosis of ill-health in trees’ TSO 1994 D. Londsdale ‘Principles of Tree Hazard Assessment and Management’ No.7 Research for Amenity Trees Forestry Commission C. Mattheck ‘The body language of trees’ 2015 https://www.gov.uk/guidance/bats-surveys-and-mitigation-for-development-projects
Planning Application 20/00744/OP Arboricultural report - Gladmans On behalf of Royston Says No to Gladman
Page 31 of 35
Appendix four
Magic Map
Planning Application 20/00744/OP Arboricultural report - Gladmans On behalf of Royston Says No to Gladman
Page 32 of 35
Magic Maps
Map extract from http://www.natureonthemap.naturalengland.org.uk/magicmap.aspx. Site shown outline red. Do not scale. North
- Registered Common Land – Therfield Heath to the north and west - Site of Special Scientific Interest – Therfield Heath SSSI (offsite to the west) - Priority Habitat Inventory – Lowland Calcareous Grassland (offsite to the west) - Priority Habitat Inventory – Grass Moorland shown by brown splodges
Map extract from http://www.natureonthemap.naturalengland.org.uk/magicmap.aspx. Site shown outline red. Do not scale. North
Planning Application 20/00744/OP Arboricultural report - Gladmans On behalf of Royston Says No to Gladman
Page 33 of 35
Appendix five
Methodology
Planning Application 20/00744/OP Arboricultural report - Gladmans On behalf of Royston Says No to Gladman
Page 34 of 35
- Initial discussion with Mr T. Webster, Planning Consultant for Fuller Long Ltd
- Site visit on Tuesday 8 May, initially accompanied by Mr A. Vaisey from Royston Says No to Gladmans to obtain background. On my own, I walked the site and took photographs close up, and from distant views. I reviewed the submitted tree report.
- Reviewed submitted detail with the planning application
- Reviewed local, regional and national policies
- Photos of Sun Hill received from Mr D Bubbins in April 2020
Planning Application 20/00744/OP Arboricultural report - Gladmans On behalf of Royston Says No to Gladman
Page 35 of 35
Independent Arboricultural assessment of an outline planning application for 120 dwellings SITE Land opposite Heath Farm, Briary Lane, Royston, Hertfordshire
Planning application 20/00744/OP
On behalf of Royston Says No To Gladman
Sharon Durdant-Hollamby FICFor FArborA BSc (Hons) Tech Cert (ArborA)
DATE: 5 May 2020 OUR REF: SHA 1175 OUR CONTACT DETAILS: 01245 210420
Sharon Hosegood Associates, Sunnyside, Duton Hill, Dunmow CM6 2DY T: 01245 210420 www.sharonhosegoodassociates.co.uk Registered Office: Fisher Michael Chartered Accountants, The Old Grange, Warren Estate, Lordship Rd, Writtle, Chelmsford, Essex CM1 3WT Company Registration Number: 9361038 Director: Sharon M.Durdant-Hollamby Planning Application 20/00744/OP Arboricultural report - Gladmans On behalf of Royston Says No to Gladman